Colluders in sexual violence: don't let them off the hook

Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, recent events within the Socialist Workers Party: all four cases show how socially powerful figures can benefit from a 'culture of collusion' perpetrated by those around them.

How many people knew or suspected that Jimmy Savile and
Cyril Smith were sexual predators and serial abusers? The
recent reports from police and other accounts show that these men’s activities
were "common knowledge” in some circles. So what sustained decades of inaction and let
these persistent abusers carry on with such impunity?

Met police Commander Peter
Spindler spoke of Savile having ‘groomed a nation’. Seized on by others
to explain how so many blind eyes were turned, the notion of Savile grooming
the nation should be treated with caution.
The phrase implies that the whole country was a victim of this creepy entertainer’s
manipulative techniques, which lets those who saw or knew and did nothing – the
colluders – off the hook.

As the police/NSPCC reports on Savile acknowledge, power and
status are useful tools for sexual predators. They undoubtedly knew that most of their
victims would be too frightened, confused or ashamed to speak. That is a common
reaction to sexual violence: assaulted on such a deep and intimate level,
survivors often want to keep it quiet. Some try to make themselves believe that
what was done to them was less awful than it actually was; or they blame
themselves, as if they caused the abuse by their own fault or naivity. Rapists and abusers rely on pervasive patriarchal
attitudes that mean that the testimony of women and children will be treated as
suspect, and many victims will fear the exposure and consequences of going
public, increasing the likelihood that they keep quiet. The more clever and manipulative predators
deliberately target people who are less likely to be believed, such as troubled
children, youngsters excited by fame, and people in a junior or supplicant
position in organisations where the predator holds status and authority.

This explains why many victims keep quiet, but a central
question that seems to have been submerged in much of the handwringing and
column inches is why so many others who ‘suspected’ or ‘knew’ about patterns of
abusive behaviour failed to take action. How many colleagues were aware of
inappropriate, predatory or illegal behaviour but chose to look the other way? What
really went through the heads of those who knew or heard about an abuser’s
activities and did nothing or, worse still, suppressed evidence and silenced
the victims? How many of these were in
positions of authority or connected in professional or personal capacities with
the abusers or the workplaces and institutions that were used to gain access to
vulnerable girls and boys? When
considering why predators like Smith and Savile were able to be so confident
that they would not be held to account or punished, we have to look at the
attitudes of others with relevant influence and authority. The various reports detail how some
investigators played into the abusers’ strategies by undermining rather than
supporting victims and whistleblowers. Patterns
of abusive behaviour were ignored or overlooked as allegations tended to be treated
as isolated, one-off events. One of Savile’s
accusers was coerced into silence after being told that lawyers would make
“mincemeat” of her. The most vulnerable
– children in institutions, as targeted by Savile and Smith – were even
punished for lying. Such systemic
cultures of collusion facilitated the decades of serial abuse. Despite years of persistent rumours and
concerns, how many people who should have rung alarm bells continued instead to
give Savile and Smith protection, status, accolades and other benefits? Such trappings of fame and power help serial
abusers to avoid scrutiny and gain greater access and power to abuse more
easily.

There may be a number of different reasons why some people
choose to collude rather than speaking or acting to expose inappropriate and
harmful behaviour that they see or hear about.
Some may be afraid of the consequences of rocking an important boat, while
others may enjoy the attention, flattery, friendship and other personal
benefits they receive directly or indirectly from their proximity to a famous
man. Several decades after feminists
began challenging “casting couch” harassment whereby producers or professors
(usually male) considered it a right and a perk to “have” their pick of
fledgling students and actors (usually female), the dynamics of power, gender
and vulnerability are still manipulated by sexual predators, aided and abetted
by colluders who maintain the cultures of impunity that allow serial abusers to
feel confident of their power to evade punishment. Some of Savile’s colluders seem to have viewed
his crimes as normal for the swinging sixties, “a bit of fun”, or even to have admired
him for getting away with it.

What of the others who were aware of Savile’s “dark side” and Smith’s “predilections”
but chose to turn a blind eye? Some, worse
still, sustained them with public awards, facilities and positions that gave
them even greater access to their unfortunate prey. Were these colluders also victims, seduced by
the charm or celebrity these high profile, famous men exploited, as implied by
the “grooming” explanation? Were they
awed into keeping quiet because “Jimmy” raised so much money for charity and
“Cyril” was a “well-respected” MP? Did
they actively collude, or were they just cowards who didn’t want trouble, who perhaps
felt that they needed first and foremost to preserve their own jobs, institutions
or causes?

Some staff reportedly tried to help or protect those in their
charge. They knew enough to be concerned. Surely they knew
that abusing children was not only abhorrent but illegal… so how is it that
they could not get the perpetrators stopped and brought to justice? Some apparently tried to blow the whistle, so
why did they give up? Savile and Smith
couldn’t ensure such silence single-handedly. It appears that at least some who
sought to expose them were ridiculed, threatened and bullied by colluders in
positions of influence. If so, these
intimidators chose to become accomplices. Through them, the cultures of
collusion and impunity were perpetuated at all levels.

Some in positions of authority have justified their inaction
by claiming there was insufficient
evidence to be sure of getting a conviction.
Yet in these cases there appears to have been more than enough evidence
to justify acting to prevent harm to potential further victims. Even if Smith and Savile denied wrongdoing or tried
to turn the tables by accusing their accusers (familiar tactics that they
employed with bluster and indignation),
it is now clear that if those in authority had chosen to investigate
more seriously, there were plenty of grounds to have cut Savile and Smith off
from the positions of power, access and influence that gave them impunity. Actions to sideline and deny access to the
predators could well have encouraged other victims to come forward, thereby
providing sufficiently clear evidence for a court to convict.

Last
year’s scandal involving the French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn
illustrates other aspects of collusion by friends and colleagues of high
profile abusers. When Strauss-Kahn’s arrest for raping a hotel maid in New York
went public, it transpired that he was widely recognised in
certain French circles as a sexual
pest and predator. It is necessary to state that I am not
claiming that Strauss-Kahn
was guilty of rape in New York, as the case never came to trial. Echoing the
reasons police gave for not pursuing charges against Savile and Smith, the New
York prosecutors eventually dropped the case against Strauss-Kahn on grounds
that the maid, a recent immigrant from Guinea, might not make a believable
witness. However, as stories about Strauss-Kahn’s
“libertine”
obsessions and other alleged assaults and “harassment” of women had been
circulating for years in France, there appears to have been a pattern. After he
was arrested, some of the “open secrets” went public, and the mother of one, Anne
Mansouret, a senior figure in France’s Socialist Party, admitted that
she’d persuaded her daughter not to tell the police of an attempted rape by “DSK” some years
before, in case it might damage the Party. According to the
Guardian, although colleagues were well aware of Strauss-Kahn’s “rather
pathological relationship” with women, they turned an indulgent eye and protected
him because he was regarded as a Socialist star and a “bright man with a
future”.

It is important to recognise how the collusion of patriarchal
institutions and sycophantic colleagues enables some abusers to get away with sexual
violence all their lives. Unlike the
furtive perverts that expose their penises by school gates, Savile, Smith and Strauss-Kahn had large egos
and were plausible liars and risk takers. As politicians or entertainers they
made their livings as fast-talking communicators, exercising means of
ingratiation, flattery and charm. Skilled
and manipulative enough to rise up the ranks, they may well have gained extra
excitement from their risky behaviour, testing those around them to see what
they could get away with. It is arguable that each time they persuaded or
intimidated others into silence or collusion their success amplified their
belief in their own superiority and untouchability, feeding their pathology and
making them bolder and more dangerous.

In our celebrity-obsessed societies these big, confident
egos drew others to provide them with access, camouflage and protection,
whether wittingly or not. Strauss-Kahn’s admirers openly called him a
“seducer”, a word associated with sexiness rather than abuse of power, thereby
distracting from the techniques of manipulation, coercion and aggression
employed by such men, who leverage their position, fame, eccentricity, public
skills and other attributes to render themselves untouchable. In these high
profile cases, the tools that facilitated their abuse included their status and
engagement in causes and good works, such as charitable fundraising or
political campaigns.

Class, age and power, as well as gender, are major factors in
the calculations of sexual aggressors that count on getting away with their
crimes. It is perhaps unsurprising that such
people are most likely to be protected in the testosterone-filled competitive worlds
of politics, entertainment and diplomacy. That so many colluded isn’t about a
magical ability to ‘groom a nation’, but about patriarchal power and the structures,
assumptions and prejudices of misogyny. From
casino banking to arrogant politicians and entertainers, patriarchal systems have
always rewarded certain kinds of dominant and risk-taking behaviour equated with
constructed masculinity. In her 1979
anthem “Reclaim
the Night”, Peggy Seeger
made the connection between male violence and the “system” that gives “prizes”
to those that exploit and trample on oppressed and vulnerable people. Such prizes may be direct and literal –
public awards, knighthoods, high office – or indirect and institutional – Savile
and Smith were given public respect and accolades for helping vulnerable teenagers
and then appointed to positions in care homes, hospitals, reform schools and
other public facilities that gave them special access, thereby facilitating
their abuse.

Such prizes and positions provide tools to gain greater
access to potential targets. They are also useful for intimidating witnesses
and whistleblowers by threatening jobs or legal suits, for example. In addition,
these worthy causes and public prizes are often evoked by colluders to justify
their own behaviour in enabling the abusers to evade exposure and justice. While some colluders may be passive because of
fear, others may genuinely believe that it is right to say nothing in order to
protect a cherished organisation or movement from being attacked by political
adversaries. It is also important to
acknowledge that a lot of colluders enjoy the proximity and benefits they can
gain from facilitating these important, famous, risk-taking male egos. Whatever the reasons, however, sacrificing
the rights and safety of the vulnerable can never be justified, regardless of
whether the perpetrators happen to be socially powerful men or leaders in
causes that we support.

Let’s be clear, I am not arguing that people who are accused
are automatically guilty. The point is
to bring accusations into the open where they can be properly investigated. If there is initially insufficient evidence to
bring suspects to justice, it is
important – at the very least – to show increased vigilance, limit their access
to vulnerable people, and make the environment safer for potential targets than
for any abusers. Such measures are not
tantamount to finding someone guilty before trial; each allegation should also
be properly investigated – but with due regard for the fact that lying,
silencing and bullying are part of abusers’ manipulative tactics, which often include
isolating, ridiculing and accusing the accusers and witnesses who raise the
alarm.

Anyone who thinks it prudent to conceal abuse for the sake
of some noble cause or cherished institution needs to learn from recent
events. Sexual predators are willing to
risk others as well as themselves. As
the BBC has recently discovered, covering for them will taint and tarnish the
institutions they operate in far more than if their abuse is responsibly
exposed and addressed, no matter how famous or important they may appear to be. That is a hard lesson to learn, but people in
peace movements and progressive parties need to stop the double standards that
justify and collude with sexual violence in our own organisations. As
illustrated by recent attempts by Britain’s Socialist
Workers Party (SWP) to avoid dealing responsibly with allegations of rape
by a senior
party figure, progressive movements
need a clearer understanding of how sexual predators operate, how they choose
their targets (which in the case of political parties or movements may well be
new recruits or young, idealistic women who want to join, learn and help the
cause), and also how they camouflage their abusive behaviour and find colluders
willing to turn a blind eye because of their “good work” for “the cause”.

If we care about building more democratic, just and
participatory movements, then we have to put principles such as diversity,
nonviolence, and opposition to sexism, racism and other forms of abusive
discrimination into practice. That means not being afraid to challenge and expose
the perpetrators and the patriarchal practices that collude with abusive
behaviour. Since evidence of sexual
harassment and abuse is often obscured because victims are left too scared to
speak publicly, it is important to recognise and act on patterns, signs and
signals. One ugly story may be malicious
or unfounded, but it should still be checked out. When someone’s name is linked
with more allegations or persistent rumours of inappropriate, predatory and
coercive behaviour, it isn’t a joke. It’s
a potential threat. It warrants investigation.
If you don’t take these indications seriously you may be perpetuating
and colluding in crimes against vulnerable people. Abusers don’t only destroy innocent
lives. If you ignore or enable them, they
may also bring you and your cherished cause crashing down.

About the author

Rebecca Johnson is
director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, and a feminist
peace activist. She is the Green Party spokesperson on security, peace and defence
and serves with various nuclear and humanitarian organisations.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Support our campaign into DUP #darkmoney

Theresa May is desperately clinging to power, relying on the DUP, the hard-right party that has blocked same-sex marriage, and kept abortion illegal.

Worse still, they're bankrolled by dark money – we've exposed the shady group behind their lavish pro-Brexit campaigning, but they're still refusing to name their secret donors. Now they hold the balance of power at Westminster, it's even more vital that we find out who their paymasters are.